Shuttlemax 12.0 vs Magellan 800

[woody357]

Have you been able to shut that Genzler off for a bit to talk about it?

Hahaha. Yes I can. I’m running it threw two 112 Genz Benz 112 focus cabinets. I have to say this what I have been looking for. The notes have a little more heft to them kind of like a tube head, but no tubes. Has a nice punch to it, I always felt my Fender sound a little thin, but with this amp I get the clarity and the low end with out too much sizzle or mud. I’m not saying it won’t get muddy but the way I have it set ( everything set at 12). I am still learning it, but to my ears the contour knob is where the magic is at. I play it with the contour set on A ( blue light). I like the clean channel, I haven’t found a need for the drive channel yet. I haven’t gigged with it yet, I’ve only played in the house, but I’ll have to watch my volume when I do gig with it if I’m using the two 112s because they are rated at 200 watts, but I really think the are 300 watts. It really doesn’t matter because I never push my equipment hard. If anyone has a question that I may not have covered please ask and try to answer you.

 

[MarkA]

...I haven’t gigged with it yet, I’ve only played in the house, but I’ll have to watch my volume when I do gig with it if I’m using the two 112s because they are rated at 200 watts, but I really think the are 300 watts. It really doesn’t matter because I never push my equipment hard...

Even though the two 112s, combined, will present a 4 Ohm load to the amp, you can set the impedance switch in back to "2.67 Ohms" which, I believe, will down-regulate the power at 4 and 8 Ohms a bit (don't try it the other way around). It will also soften-up the overall feel and presentation of the amp a bit. @Jeff Genzler could tell you more about that and about what the Focus cabs (@agedhorse, too) will take.

Of course, using your ears (which it sounds like you do) and having enough cab for the gig are your best safeguards.

If you ever felt like you needed it, with that amp, you could add a third, matching 112 (in which case you'd need to set it to 2.67 Ohms).

 

[Jeff Genzler]

@woody357, glad you're enjoying the MG-800. Sounds like you're discovering what this next generation of Genzler amps is all about. And if you are concerned about overall power output you can mismatch the impedance to 2.67 ohms setting which will lower the overall output and other thresholds.
Your Focus cabs are the forerunners to the latest NU Classic cabs, with speaker and cabinet design upgrades.

 

[woody357]

@woody357, glad you're enjoying the MG-800. Sounds like you're discovering what this next generation of Genzler amps is all about. And if you are concerned about overall power output you can mismatch the impedance to 2.67 ohms setting which will lower the overall output and other thresholds.
Your Focus cabs are the forerunners to the latest NU Classic cabs, with speaker and cabinet design upgrades.

Thank you. I have been following the MG-800 since it came in the market, and I’m very happy I finally bought one. I have other cabinets from Epifani and Hartke that can handle the power but I tend to gig with the GB 112s most of the time, mainly because it’s a lot easier to move two 112 cabinets at around 30lbs than a heavy 410 hahaha plus I really like the 112s. I have been thinking about adding a NU Classic 112 cabinet to that setup, or going all in and get a BA410, but I have to sell something to offset $$$$

 

[craigmack1979]

@woody357 ---- thank you for your questions and for continuing to use the good ole' ShuttleMAX. About the Magellan 800, it is a very different amp design and tonally very different as well. Many GB users that have turned to the Magellan 800 are really excited about the weight and heft of the notes, the simplicity to get a great tone, and how musical it is, for a variety of playing styles.
If you want to test one out. while we do not have a dealer in Augusta, you are right between a couple of our dealers. Maple Street Guitars in Atlanta and Ye Olde Music in Charleston, SC. Seems like you are right in the center of both. Sorry we don't have a dealer in Augusta.
Please feel free to PM me or email me with any specific questions you might have: [email protected]
Hope this helps.

I purchased Magellan 800 and just received it 2 days ago . In my humble opinion it’s one of best class D amp on market bar none including my TH700 which is also excellent amp

 

[craigmack1979]

How do you like the WT-550? A friend toured nationally with one for years. I thought it sounded great.

I owned both a Shuttlemax 12.0 and a Magellan 800, though not at the same time, and still own the big Genz GBE 1200, which I had concurrently with both - I didn't get to compare the Max and the Magellan directly to each other, but I got to compare each with the GBE, which has been my reference amp for a while. I'm familiar with the other Shuttle heads and the Streamliner to varying degrees.

I can't say what you'll like, but the Max 12.0 and the Magellan are different enough that I think most people will have a preference. The EQ on the 'Max (particularly with the channel blending) is very flexible, but, for me, "fat and round, but clean and articulate" was easier to dial-in quickly with the Magellan.

The Magellan is voiced a little warmer than the Shuttlemax with knobs at noon and it's a little more subdued in the highest frequencies, but it's still pretty flexible and it's not hard to dial in a snappy sound with it (I got a nice, meaty slap tone with it and my Brubaker Brute). In general, I liked the touch on it better than I did that of the Shuttlemax -- I felt more connected to my instrument with it and felt it hit harder -- and I think it's a punchier amp overall (though neither amp hits as hard as the GBE, particularly in the lowest part of the register).

The Magellan will have more headroom into a single cab (4 or 8 Ohm) than the Max 12.0 will. The Max, as you know, will run two 4 Ohm cabs, while the Magellan won't (2.7 Ohms minimum).

The Max will do some things that the Magellan won't and I can see preferring it in some situations, but if I had to play a gig with one tomorrow, particularly given the music and the tonal preferences you mention, I'd take the Magellan.

You may end up disagreeing, but that's my take.

2.67 ohms not 2.7

 

[brocco]

I purchased Magellan 800 and just received it 2 days ago . In my humble opinion it’s one of best class D amp on market bar none including my TH700 which is also excellent amp

The MG800 ended my search! It does clean so well, but the drive channel and contour A/B are what sets this gem apart. Versatile and ease of use. I have been in the process of selling the rest of my amps as I don't need them anymore.

 

[agedhorse]

2.67 ohms not 2.7

2.67 rounded up is 2.7

 

[craigmack1979]

2.67 rounded up is 2.7

That’s correct just like I’m correct lol

 

[Passinwind]

That’s correct just like I’m correct lol

You rounded up too...just sayin'.

 

[agedhorse]

That’s correct just like I’m correct lol

But you said it’s not 2.7, which it is.

 

[Wasnex]

2.67 ohms not 2.7

Correct, 2.67 is not 2.7.

However, the actual answer we are looking for is:
8/3 =

ohms

I had to use a graphic as I don't know how to add the vinculum over the 6 on TalkBass.

can be approximated by writing 2.67 or 2.666666667. Neither is actually 100% accurate, but accuracy increases with the number of decimal spaces.

 

[agedhorse]

And with the parameter tolerances of speakers, 2.7 ohms is perfectly accurate. Besides, it's a nominal number.

 

[SteveC]

I’ve had a lot of Genz Benz and Genzler gear. I loved my Shuttle Max 12.0. The blending of Tube and FET was awesome. Lots of knobs for sure. It’s big by comparison to today’s offerings but it was a great amp. I get by with an MG350 these days.

 

[agedhorse]

I’ve had a lot of Genz Benz and Genzler gear. I loved my Shuttle Max 12.0. The blending of Tube and FET was awesome. Lots of knobs for sure. It’s big by comparison to today’s offerings but it was a great amp. I get by with an MG350 these days.

It's also 1200 watts RMS split between 2 channels. The combination of power and feature set pretty much dictated the size, there's no wasted space!

 

[S-Bigbottom]

You rounded up too...just sayin'.

This gave me a good two minute giggle.

 

[MarkA]

I got some amusement out of the string of posts above.

2 ⅔, as @Wasnex (and @Passinwind, indirectly) pointed out, repeats when expressed as a decimal figure (2.66666.....), but point taken: 2.67 is what's printed on the amp and .67, I would guess, is more universally recognized as an approximation of 2/3.

Still, I think 2.7 is close enough for "cab math" (as @agedhorse pointed out, the impedances are nominal values -- I think most folks would recognize 2.7 and 2.67 Ohms as referring to the same real-world circumstances in such discussions) and I can't promise that I won't type it again. (2.7 Ohms -- there!)

Cheers!
-Mark

 

[Pilgrim]

As noted above, these impedances are nominal in any case. They serve to tell you what cab goes with what amp, or combinations that work.

As a friend of mine says, "from a galloping horse, who can tell the difference?"

 

[agedhorse]

As noted above, these impedances are nominal in any case. They serve to tell you what cab goes with what amp, or combinations that work.

As a friend of mine says, "from a galloping horse, who can tell the difference?"

From a galloping horse, most things appear trivial. First hand daily experience.

 

[Wasnex]

When I took physics, we often used ≈ to indicate our answers were rounded. AFAIK the ≈ symbol translates to almost equal to.

For example 8/3 ≈ 2.7.

Of course, the precise value is 8/3 =

AFAIK this is the most accurate answer possible. It means 2.66666666... (I.E. with the 6 repeating to infinity).

Rounded up to the tenths, the value is 8/3 ≈ 2.7.

I do think it is much more common to write 8/3 ≈ 2.67. 2.67 is slightly closer to the actual value. However, 2.67 is rounded up to the hundredths space so it is still an approximation.

In this context I don't have a problem with 2.7 ohms, but I prefer 2.67 ohms. I would probably bust your chops if you wrote 8/3 ≈ 3.